memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= MA images (maps) *Category:Memory Alpha images (maps) **Category:Memory Alpha images (planetary systems) **Category:Memory Alpha images (schematics) ***Category:Memory Alpha images (MSDs) **Category:Memory Alpha images (star charts) **Category:Memory Alpha images (terrestrial maps) The new tree under Category:Memory Alpha images (graphics) and Category:Memory Alpha images (display graphics). - 06:47, February 12, 2011 (UTC) Clothing articles *Category:Memory Alpha images (clothing) This would apply to images of articles of clothing (ie, robes, boots, etc), not ones of people in them, unless the image is specifically to show an article of clothing rather than the person wearing it. -- sulfur 15:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 06:27, November 15, 2010 (UTC) :I started this, putting everything that could be worn from the base image category. I'm under the impression that we need a "clothing accessory" sub-category for things like bags, bracelets, and earrings. Also, we may want to sub clothing under sports and recreation or either create a differ sub cat for both categories, since a good number of those images will overlap. - 01:32, February 10, 2011 (UTC) Starfleet personnel *Category:Starfleet command personnel *Category:Starfleet operations personnel *Category:Starfleet sciences personnel *Category:Starfleet personnel (alternate reality) *Category:Starfleet personnel (mirror) *Category:Fleet Operations Center personnel The new categories under Category:Starfleet personnel. - 14:42, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :So... I haven't been here in a bit, and do not know this... but why are some of the Starfleet personnel being categorized by division? Wouldn't it be easier to just have them all in one big category, "Starfleet Personnel" or something? I realize that there are a lot of names to go there, but this seems a bit... much. I agree with separating the alternate reality and mirror universe personnel though, but divisions? --Terran Officer 23:24, February 14, 2011 (UTC) ::I think all the personnel are being categorized that way, unless they were not seen or had their position described. That's fine with me, but I'm wondering why there couldn't be both. Wikipedia has, as an example, a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" category and an "Army Medal of Honor recipients".--31dot 23:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC) :Actually, I could probably accept it if they were in both, I think I considered that myself, I am really wondering why they were being removed from the "parent" category. After all, they are first and foremost, "Starfleet personnel" their division assignment relates to their duties/career paths, and it has been shown, that this can change. --Terran Officer 23:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC) Why do we want to clutter the bottom of the page with redundancies by having them in both? It only makes the top category harder to navigate, and that's the whole reason it need to be broken down into something more manageable. - 23:41, February 14, 2011 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Non-corporeal beings We already have a list of about 30 species. Given that we know of quite a few entities/individuals from some of these, there are probably 50-60 articles that would fit this. Two ways we could approach this: * One category that includes both individuals and the species (easier, since in some of these cases, the lines are skewed) * OR we could have separate cats for the individuals and the species. --- Jaz 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :Support first option. - 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think the first option would probably be easier to do, maybe name it "Non-corporeals" or something, although I suppose "beings" would work as well, but are they really "beings" in all instances? --Terran Officer 22:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Language sub-categories I was noticing today that we have quite a large number of terms from various Trek cultures (many of which simply redirect to the "X language" article) and got to thinking that it might be worth creating sub-categories for each language (such as "Klingon language", "Romulan language", etc) and categorize the various redirects or terms into those categories, which would be subcategories of Category:Languages and the race to which they are associated (Category:Klingon for the "Klingon language" one, for example). Thoughts? -- sulfur 15:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 17:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Good idea as far as redirects are concerned. However, what about terms that do not redirect to the language article, but instead are the title of an existing article? For example, should Bat'leth (an article about a weapon that "happens to be" Klingon in origin) also be categorized as a "Klingon language" item? I'm not sure about that... -- Cid Highwind 17:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm leaning to suggest that it should, because it is (in that case) a term in the Klingon language. It so happens to also be a weapon, but it's still a term in the language. My logic behind that is that perhaps people want a list of Klingon (or Romulan, or or or) terms. They see the "Klingon language" category, click that, and then see various terms in there that have their own articles to describe items, concepts, what-have-you. If those are words in that language, why not list them? -- sulfur 17:36, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Could we agree on making it a HIDDENCAT, then? Because, while the reasoning to have all, for example, Klingon terms listed on one page is sound, it would be rather strange to have the category appear on the objects' article. "A bat'leth IS A weapon", but not "a bat'leth IS A klingon language"... ;) -- Cid Highwind 17:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Summary of a conversation Sulfur and I had on IRC: ::*If the above HIDDENCAT suggestion doesn't get consensus, alternatives are to call the category "Klingon language lemma", "Klingon language phrase" or "Klingon language term". All would avoid breaking the "is a" relationship between a categorized article and its category. Sulfur prefers "term". Cid slightly prefers "lemma", but could live with "term". ::*The article Klingon language needs to be either categorized in that category (with a special sort key, putting it to the top), or alternatively be mentioned in the description part of the category. Sulfur and Cid both prefer the latter solution. ::*Also, some sort of link ("For a full list of Klingon terms, see here") should be provided on the Klingon language article. ::-- Cid Highwind 20:01, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Support the hidden cat option, not a fan of the others. - 20:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Support any of those ideas, they all seem fair. Though the hidden cat is probably the simplest.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Quantum physics We certainly have a lot of articles that start with "quantum." I think we should have this cat. Thoughts? -Angry Future Romulan 16:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Earth mythology I noticed that for the Camelot article we use "Earth settlements", which does not seem like the correct category. It is very debatable that Camelot actually physically existed and it is more part of the Arthurian legends, so calling it an Earth settlement makes it look like a colony on some planet established by Terrans or something. So we need a category called Category:Earth mythology. The King Arthur article also seems awkwardly categorized as "government officials". Again, Arthur was part of the Arthurian legends and not really a government official like Bill Clinton. We need to have a more accurate category for things like that. Note that a lot of the Greek mythology articles such as Achilles (Greek mythology), Hera, etc. could be categorized under "Earth Mythology". Currently they are categorized under "Humans" only. Add Beowulf and Beowulf (poem) to the list. – Distantlycharmed 18:58, November 13, 2010 (UTC) :Support– Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:01, November 14, 2010 (UTC) I am bumping this up. It's been up for a while. Distantlycharmed 22:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC) Can we create this category finally? Or can more people bud in and say what they think. The current category at which most of the above mentioned are is just inaccurate and wrong. Distantlycharmed 20:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I dislike just starting with "Earth mythology". Let's start a level up and do "Mythology". Then we can break that down further if necessary. -- sulfur 22:20, February 4, 2011 (UTC) How much just pure Mythology do we have? And what would be so horribly bad about Earth Mythology? Isnt it bad enough that half the categories on this site dont match up to what the article really is about? Now you have to go look under Earth Settlement for Camelot? How incompetent. Anyway then just create mythology then, which is far better than the completely inaccurate and misleading category all these things are under now. Distantlycharmed 17:03, February 5, 2011 (UTC) Actually, let me ammend that. Since there are plenty of articles that would fall under the Earth Mythology category, there is no need ot wait to "break down further if necessary. There is no if necessary: it IS necessary. They are not going to stop being Earth Mythologies as we move on. If you find other Mythology (by alien races) then categorize them accordingly. Distantlycharmed 17:08, February 5, 2011 (UTC) :::Actually, that (sulfur's suggestion) is how categorization works best. If we created "Earth mythology", we'd still not have any category for "other mythology" - and if we later create that, we'd need "mythology" as a common super-category, anyway. So, to get an idea for the actual amount of mythology articles that would fall into any specific sub-category, it's best to create the super-category first. That way, we can then decide which ones are sensible and which are not. -- Cid Highwind 17:17, February 5, 2011 (UTC) Planetary classification I don't believe we have a category for this and we do have several articles which could go under this heading, Class M and Class Y to name two off the top of my head. Currently, these articles come under Astronomical objects which doesn't quite fit, IMO. -- TrekFan Open a channel 10:15, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :Astronomical classifications, under Astronomy, seems like a better idea, as there could be sub-categories for things like planetary classifications, and the number of other articles we have that would fall under that, but these categories shouldn't replace astronomical objects on most, if not all, of the articles. This would just provide another way of looking for articles in the tree. - 03:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC) Yeah I agree with that. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:40, February 3, 2011 (UTC) Stations A reorganization of the tree under Technology: *Category:Stations **Category:Space stations ***Category:Outposts ***Category:Starbases **Category:Terrestrial stations ***Category:Outposts ***Category:Starbases This address the issues that while all planets may be in space, one would expect a space station to not be located on one, but rather in said space itself. - 07:12, February 9, 2011 (UTC) Production POV categories Award categories We have categroies for Category:Academy Award winners and Category:Academy Award nominees, Category:Emmy Award winners and Category:Emmy Award nominees, and Category:Saturn Award winners and Category:Saturn Award nominees. To complete the list we also should have Category:Screen Actors Guild Award winners and Category:Taurus World Stunt Award nominees. Maybe I am missing one more, see this list. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Come up with a full list, and it shouldn't be a problem I don't think. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Video Games performers/ Video Games production staff We have articles (individual articles) for almost all of the comic book and novel writers and artist, having the category Category:Star Trek publication artists. The only orphan here on MA are the video games. Many actors appeared in both, one of the video games and one of the series/films. But there are also several performers and people behind them who worked only on the video games and we currently list them here. They should also have their own articles. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :Agreed. Surprised that we didn't have this stuff before. I'm not entirely convinced that we should have articles for each individual person in a game, but if we do, we cannot limit it to the performers, and much deal with the production staff too. Then it becomes a question of "which staff do we deal with", since most of the games include the main directors (etc) of each and every company that worked on the game, even if said director had nothing to do with it at all. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Production company sub-categories I see that Category:Production companies contains both companies which actually produced Star Trek series and/or films (such as Desilu, Viacom and so forth) and companies which were sub-contracted for things like visual effects and makeup (such as Burman Studio, Gregory Jein, Inc., Digital Domain and so forth). Would it make sense to have subcategories for the latter, perhaps along these lines: *Category:Production companies (parent category) **Category:Visual effects production companies **Category:Makeup effects studios **Category:Post-production companies **Category:Production support companies (for caterers, trailer companies, etc. – e.g. Bobby Weisman Caterers, Inc., Movie Movers, and so forth) We might also consider further subdivisions of the visual effects production companies category, perhaps into sub-sub-categories like Category:Model-making companies, Category:Matte painting companies, and Category:Computer-generated effects companies; however, this might be too complicated, as some companies (such as ILM) would fit into more than one sub-sub-cat. I also don't know whether we want to have categories for things like sound, or if that would go under "post-production". Finally, if we do this, would the companies that produced Star Trek proper have their own subcategory, or would they just stay in the parent cat? I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on any of this. –Josiah Rowe 02:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Do we actually need these sub-cats? I generally believe that we shouldn't add a sub-cat unless there are at least 5-10 pages that would fit into it. - 21:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Well, there are certainly >10 pages that could go into a visual effects companies subcat, and probably between 5 and 10 for makeup companies. Not sure about the others, though. –Josiah Rowe 07:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I support any sub-cat that can get 5-10 pages in it. - 07:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ::If there are at least 5-6 entries for a category, support. Otherwise, no. I might suggest compiling a list of what would be sorted into where and then listing that here. If that list is suitable (which you should be able to tell, simply by looking at it), it should give a better idea as to what categories would be good, and which would not. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) The article Production companies could be a starting point: there are 10 companies listed under "Producers and distributors", which could be the basis for a "producers and distributors" category (unless somebody can think of a better name). Visual effects and makeup are lumped together in that article under "Effects"; I had thought that they could be broken down into digital visual effects, model makers, makeup companies and so forth, but it turns out that there are several companies (such as Film Illusions and Image G) which would fit into multiple categories, so perhaps a single "Effects companies" category would be best. Production and post-production subcontractors are listed together on that page as "Filming/Sound/Editing"; can we think of a better term for this group? –Josiah Rowe 05:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC) ::You're missing what I meant. Come up with some suggested categories, and create a page in your user space listing each category suggestion as a header, with the companies listed under each one. No need to group stuff together randomly either. Just group as is logical. -- sulfur 10:12, September 8, 2010 (UTC) OK, I've created such a list at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox. As you will see, some companies fit into multiple subcategories (e.g., Industrial Light & Magic did digital visual effects, matte paintings and model work). There are also a few that I couldn't figure out subcategories for: about six general special effects companies, and three companies that are in Category:Production companies but don't fit into any of the subcategories I've come up with. I hope this is what you were looking for. –Josiah Rowe 04:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :My first big problem with this is there is no "parent category" for all of there, so I suggest Production Companies become that, while the pages currently in that category to be filed under one called Television and Film. The second is that a good number of the various effects pages are also post production, so better names and breakdowns should be found, maybe along physical, digital, and "visual" (special effects) lines, using that in the name of the categories? Third, any category with less than five pages in unnecessary IMO, since they can easily be under the parent category (production companies). All in all though, good work, despite my griping. - 04:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem is that I don't have a very solid understanding of the different ways in which digital effects are used in production and post-production. Feel free to fiddle with the page, rearrange and improve the arrangements. –Josiah Rowe 04:52, September 9, 2010 (UTC) Oh, and the only categories with less than five entries are "Live event production companies" and "Film production support companies" (and if we can find or create one more page in that category, it would have five – I'd wager that there are caterers or trailer companies or transport companies that have worked on Star Trek production that we don't have pages for). –Josiah Rowe 05:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :Defiant would be a good person to ask about this, as it seems he has a good grasp of what these companies do, based on his additions to the background information sections of episode articles. - 05:05, September 9, 2010 (UTC) I dropped him a line. –Josiah Rowe 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Sorry, guys, but I don't think I'm the right person for this. I've only been studying the making of Voyager episodes recently, so I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the companies listed. I've made one of only two contributions I'd be inclined to make; the other would be a preference for the 2 "distributors" cat titles, rather than the 2 "distribution companies". My humble advice would be to keep in mind the distinction between special effects and visual effects; the former being on-set effects (see the production subsection in the article for such an example) and visual effects (FX created after-the-fact, such as both motion control and CGI usages). "Special effects" is also a catch-all term, though, referring to both kinds of effects, much like how "Classical" music refers to all its subgenres, including classical music! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. --Defiant 09:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I'd suggest Sennim as a candidate for helping out with this; he seems to know more about effects & FX houses (especially generally) than I do. --Defiant 09:56, September 9, 2010 (UTC) OK, I dropped him a line. :) –Josiah Rowe 20:03, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Sennim was helpful in pointing out the distinction between special effects and visual effects. I have rearranged the subcats accordingly. I've also removed the subcategories that had fewer than 5 entries, per Archduk3's suggestion. I've also had an idea about how to resolve the issue that many visual effects are done in post-production: the relevant subcategories can be placed both under the "special effects companies" category and under the "post-production companies" category. The only question is what to do with effects techniques which have during the course of Star Trek production migrated from in-camera effects to post-production digital effects. (I'm thinking specifically of matte paintings here: I believe that in the days of, say, the Genesis Cave in , the matte was a physical painting on glass placed in front of the camera, but these days any matte painting is put in digitally in post-production. And yet "Matte painting companies" is a useful category, as is "post-production companies". Hmmm.) If people could take another glance at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox and see if the current proposed division is plausible, it would be appreciated. :) –Josiah Rowe 06:33, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :I good with the category names as purposed at this point. Anything else can be dealt with in the provisional category stage, but I think this is good to go. - 06:33, November 15, 2010 (UTC) Maintenance categories Medicine, drugs, and medical equipment We have a number of things that would fall into a "medical" category (not 100% on a name for it yet), several of which are simply in the "images" top level category, others (like hyposprays) are in "technology". -- sulfur 15:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC) :Support the idea. Are there images that wouldn't fall into a "medical supplies" category? - 06:27, November 15, 2010 (UTC)